[W]e should encourage better parenting or . . . remove booze from its status as the rebellion drug of choice for America’s kids by decriminalizing its use for them.

Amen. Better that a kid learn to drink with their parents around than lose their minds freshman year of college.

A bigger crock is that the federal government imposes a national drinking age by blackmailing the states with highway dollars.

Tony B:

In WI, at least, minors are allowed to drink with their parents present.

I think that this is true in most states.

Here’s a summary of the pertinent law:

The drinking age is 21 in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. All states prohibit adults from purchasing alcohol for minors or furnishing it to them, though most make exceptions for children partaking in religious ceremonies and those given alcohol in non-intoxicating amounts by parents in private homes.

When it comes to underage drinking parties, many counties, cities and towns adopted zero-tolerance policies for youth possession and consumption years ago. Social host laws widen the scope of enforcement to make parents responsible when they allow minors to possess or consume alcohol.

An adult can face probation, steep fines and jail time and can be sued for damages caused by minors who drank under the adult’s supervision.

Note this makes the supervising adult liable if he/she allowed a minor to become intoxicated and that minor then caused bodily harm or physical damage to third parties.

Don: That study you link to does not appear to support your conclusion about ads being aimed at underage persons.

What percentage, by the way, is “fairly large”?

(Please remember that “reaching minors more effectively than adults” does not mean “is targeting minors”. It means… minors are more easily swayed than adults, especially since adults already have brand preferences, while a not-yet-drinking minor doesn’t.)

(And here’s a great one from the second link: “The study defined a youth-oriented magazine, however, as one with an under-21 readership of 15.8 percent” … So it’s evil marketing at the underage if the magazine’s readership is … less than 84.2% adults?

And then “The study fell short of directly accusing the alcohol industry of purposely targeting minors”. So, evidently, even the activists don’t claim, as you do, that the alcohol industry is advertising to the underage market.)

Yes, 2H9, I’m surprised no-one’s thought of that before… .

What I have always found baffling (coming from a country where the age limit is significantly lower) is the 21 age for drinking. Several years ago, I went to stay in the US with some friends who I had studied with at college here in the UK. I had just turned 21, so I was OK (although I had to produce my British passport in bars) – but my friends (all rational adults, capable of making decisions for themselves) had to stick to soft drinks.

More importantly, when we were on their college campus, I saw no evidence that a 21 ban was being observed, let alone the least bit effective, and equally the fact that drinking alcohol was illegal (and therefore a bit ‘dangerous’) only seemed to make it more of a rebellious, youthful thing to do.

In WI, at least, minors are allowed to drink with their parents present.

The problem isn’t booze advertising—it’s booze advertising aimed at minors, who are a fairly big market for the booze industry.

Though the outcry directed at alcohol advertisers usually is concerned with the persuasive capabilities of advertising, more focused criticisms include the alleged targeting of underage drinkers through the use of appealing image advertising. [source]

The Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth at Georgetown released a study Tuesday reporting that alcohol companies were reaching America’s youths with advertising more effectively than they were with adults. [source]

A bigger crock is that the federal government imposes a national drinking age by blackmailing the states with highway dollars.

So much for state sovereignity, eh?